ocean dumping in the united states-1975

OCEAN DUMPING IN THEUNITED STATES-1975

Third Annual Reporto[ the

Environmental Protection Agency

on Administrationo[ Title I

OCEAN DUMPING IN THEUNITED STATES-1975

Third Annual Report

of the

Environmental Protection Agency

on Administrationof Title !

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act of 1972, as amended

JUNE 1975

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Water and Hazardous Materials

Washington, D. C. 20460

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

JUL .q 0

THE ADMINISTRATOR

,6

Dear Mr. President:

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of1972, as amended, requires an annual report from theAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on hisadministration of the ocean dumping permit program authorizedunder the Act. The third annual report for this program istransmitted with this letter.

The ocean dumping permit program became effectiveApril 23, 1973; final regulations and criteria were publishedOctober 15, 1973. This report covers activities during fiscal

year 1974.

Honorable Nelson A. RockefellerPresident of the SenateWashington, D.C. 20510

Enclosure

i

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYWASHINGTON, D,C. 20460

JLIL 3 o ’~fSTHE ADMINISTRATOR

J~

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of1972, as amended, requires an annual report from theAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on hisadministration of the ocean dumping permit program authorizedunder the Act. The third annual report for this program is

transmitted with this letter.

The ocean dumping permit program became effectiveApril 23, 1973; final regulations and criteria were publishedOctober 15, 1973. This report covers activities during fiscalyear 1974.

yours, .

Honorable Carl B. AlbertSpeaker of the House

of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515

Enclosure

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L Introduction and Summary1

IL Permit Operations

mo Analysis of Existing Dumping Activity

5

23

IV. Baseline Survey Program33

V. EPA Research Program41

VL Dredged Material Disposal47

VII. Ocean Incineration: A New Techniquein Ocean Disposal

51

VIII.

IXo

¯ ¯ ¯

Public Participation m the Program

The Future of Ocean Dumping as aMeans of Disposal

55¸

57

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

lo

o

3.

4.

5.

o

7.

8.

Title

Permits in Force During Calendar Year 1974

Region IRegion IIRegion HIRegion VIRegion IXHeadquarters

Permits Denied and Dumpers Phased OutDuring 1974

Ocean Dumping Violations Referred to EPA

Ocean Disposal~ Types and Amounts,1974 and 1973

Annual Inputs of Mercury and CadmiumDue to Ocean Dumping Off the AtlanticCoast

Barges Authorized for Ocean Dumping

Barge Trips for Ocean Dumping

Dredged Material Dumped in the Ocean - 1974

101017171818

19

20

24

26

28

31

48

Title

le

2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Permit Procedures

Inter-Regional Permits

7

8

vi

L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This is the third annual report of the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to the Congress on the implementation of Title of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,as amended, (referred %o in this report as "the Act"). The Actbecame effective April 23, 1973, and since that time all oceandumping of waste materials transported for the purpose of dumpinghas been done under permit from EPA except for dredged material,v~hich is regulated by the Corps of Engineers.

When the program was first initiated many procedural andtechnical decisions had to be made on an interim basis becauseof the need to implement the Act rapidly and the general lack ofspecific knowledge of the impact of ocean dumping on the marineenvironment. It was also apparent that the widespread practiceof ocean dumping, which had been going on for many years, couldnot be stopped instantaneously without allowing time for the develop-ment of acceptable alternatives. During the two years since theAct became effective, the interim procedures and criteria havebeen replaced by improved regulations and criteria, better laboratorymethods of analysis have been developed, a program of baselinesurveys has been initiated, and many dumpers of toxic wasteshave been phased out or are on firm implementation schedules.

This annual report covers the second full year of regulationof ocean dumping by EPA under Title I of the Act, and it offersthe first opportunity to make quantitative comparisons of how oceandumping has changed since the Act became effective.

Eleven ocean dumping sites in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulfof Mexico are now in active use for municipal and industrial wastes.There is no dumping of these wastes in the Pacific, althoughmunicipal sewage sludge is discharged to the ocean through out-falls. These discharges are regulated under the permit systemof the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.Ocean dumping site surveys are being conducted on three sites,and additional surveys are due to begin this year. These surveysare designed to provide the scientific data for EnvironmentalImpact Statements (EIS) to be prepared for each dumping sitedesignated on other than an interim basis and to determine asthe basis for dumpsite management the effects of disposal in theoceans of a variety of wastes. Regulations for the designationand management of ocean dumping sites are being developed andwill include the requirements for baseline and trend assessmentsurveys, and an interagency agreement concerning cooperative

efforts in such surveys has been developed with the National~n~ and Atmosuheric Administration (NO.AA.) ¯ A detailedv ...... . -- . hebaseline survey is currently being conducted m t New YorkBight for an alternate site for sewage sludge disposal. EPA isalso studying and evaluating two dump sites, one industrial andone municipal° off Delaware Bay, and is cooperating with NOA-&in studies of a deepwater site off the continental shelf east of CapeHenlopen, Delaware. The Corps of Engineers has underway afive-year dredged material research program which will provideinformation to assist EPA in revising the dredged material criteria.In addition, results of the Corpssponsored studies will give EPAa better data base from which to evaluate dredged material disposalsites.

These studies are being supplemented by EPA researchactivities including conducting investigations into ecologicalprocesses and effects of ocean dumping.

Ocean dumping activity shows a net increase in ocean dumpingof about 1.6 million tons from 1973 to 1974, excluding dredgedmaterial. This net increase is the result of an increase in dumping

of construction and demolition debris of about l. 1 million tonscombined with a slight overall increase in dumping of both in-dustrial wastes and sewage sludge over the same period. However,during the coming year, EPA expects to phase out many industrialdumpers as alternate methods of disposal are developed andimplemented. Based on existing permits and permit applications,there should be no dumping in the Pacific Ocean, and dumpingin the Gulf of Mexico should be about l0 percent of the 1973 level.

All dumping of municipal sewage sludge originates in theNew York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, and the volumedumped increased slightly between 1973 and 1974. This was dueto the increase in the volumes of sewage treated and the upgradingof Some municipal sewage treatment plants.

Surveillance of dumping activities is assigned by the Act tothe Coast Guard. The Coast Guard’s enforcement program iskeyed tO close surveillance of the disposal of toxic materialswith spot-checks of non-toxic material dumps.

All violations of permit Conditions and illegal dumpingreported to EPA are subject to enforcement action through theassessment of civil penalties, and, where necessary, criminalproceedings. From April, 1973 to December, 1974, there were983 ocean disposal surveillance missions undertaken by theCoast Guard~ 36 violation notifications were referred to EPA.

These were all investigated. Letters of warnings were issued

and formal enforcement actions were taken.

The past year has seen the first use in the United States ofa technique in ocean disposal commonly used in Europe for thepast few years. This is ocean incineration, and it is useful forthe disposal of toxic wastes with a high caloric value. LastOctober a specially designed incinerator ship capable of burning4,200 tons of chemical wastes per mission, incinerated organo-chlorine wastes with greater than 99.9 percent efficiency at asite 143 nautical miles south of Galveston, TexaS. These wastesare highly toxic and could not be dumped directly into the marine

ineration converted these wastes to hydrogenenvironment. Inc~_ ~:^~de in cuantities innocuous to the oceanschlomae ano car~ u,,~-- ",

and the atmosphere.

The major problem in the future is anticipated to be increasedpressure to dispose of wastes in the ocean which result frommore and better waste treatment facilities removing increasedamounts of wastes from both municipal and industrial waste

ic EPA approach has been to attempt to findstreams. The bas .... 11,, A~,~a~in¢ site and method ofand use the least envlronmenL~. ~.~-- ~ ° land, air, or water.disposal for each waste whether it revolves

¯ ̄ is needed on all disposal methods, in-.Much additlon.al study --- ¯ " as well as ocean dun~pln.g,nludin~ land disposal and xncmeratlon .^,~+ ¢0 allow the selec~lon~,=¢~,,,~.~’th tare of the art W~J-L De suzIx’=~’~t7 -= "j~,of the best env~ronmen~ ,~ .....

3

PERMIT OPERATIONS

The Act absolutely prohibits the dumping of high-level radioactivewastes and all biological, chemical, and radiological warfare agentsin the ocean. The dumping of all other wastes, except dredged

erial is to be strictly regulated by EPA. The basis for .mat , ...... ~ ...... 1 criteria which requireregulation is g~v.e.n ~n me z.orm u~ ~_~-~ ~^min~ to a determinationEPA to balance tne to,towing zac~ur~ ~ ~v ewhether to issue or deny a permit.

1. The need for the proposed dumping, as determined byEPA.

2. The effect of the dumping on the marine environment.

3. Social and economic considerations involving the dumping,including effects on health and welfare, fishery resources,recreational values, etc.

4. Alternate means of disposal, including alternate methods oftreatment, land-based disposal, and recycling.

5. The feasibilRy of dumping beyond the continental shelf.

These same criteria apply to the issuance of permits under

Sections 402 and 403 of the Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972 for outfall discharges into the ocean.

To carry out this responsibility, the Administrator of EPA isauthorized to promulgate regulations, designate areas where oceandumping may be permitted, and designate critical areas wheredumping is prohibited. EPA must also give public notice and allowopportunity for public hearing before any permit is issued.

Dredged material may be dumped by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers perrnittees after the proposed permit has been reviewed

reed u on by EPA. In issuing such permits the Corps isandu~gred to ~e EPA-designated sites wherever feasible, but theCorps may use other sites if they determine that disposal at theEPA sites is not economically feasible and EPA grants a waiver.EPA must grant a waiver within 30 days unless it makes the deter-mination that such disposal will have an unacceptable adverse effect

on the environment.

Re onsibility for survetllance of.dump.mg, operat~onsto ensuresp . - ......... * ~ oo~loneu to me u. ~. ~o~ ,~----that permit conmtlons ~L:~ ~ ..... ~

civil penalities forEPA, however, has the authority to assess

5

violation of permit conditions. There is also a provision for criminalaction.

Title II of the Act requires NOAA to conduct a comprehensiveprogram Of research and monitoring regarding the effects of thedumping of material into ocean waters° Title HI gives to NOAAauthority to establish marine sanctuaries.

Figures 1 and 2 show the procedures used by the EPA Regionaloffices in processing permit applications.

Section 220.3(d)(2) of the Ocean Dumping Final Regulationsand CrReria specifies that an "interim permit will require thedevelopment and active implementation of a plan to either elimi-nate the discharge entirely from the ocean or to bring it withinthe limitations of..." the ocean dumping criteria. The expirationdate of an interim permit is determined by completion of sequen-tial phases of the development and implementation of the requiredplan and does not exceed one year from the date of issue. Aninterim permit may not be renewed, but a new interim permitmay be issued upon satisfactory completion of each phase of thedevelopment and implementation of the plan.

A survey of the EPA Regional offices indicates that thoseprevious permittees who have been required to phase out oceandumping during 1974 have found many alternate methods of dis-posal° such as deep well injection, land incineration, landfill,storage, recycling, and industrial waste treatment, such asneutralization, biotreatment, and carbon adsorption.

Other permittees who are on current implementation plansare examining these and other alternatives to ocean disposal.In some cases the permittees have presented draft implementationplans to the Regional offices containing alternatives to ocean dis-posal not environmentally acceptable to EPA. These permitteeshave been requested to review again the alternatives available tothem and report back to the region.

In July 1974, Region II initiated a comprehensive sludgemanagement program for the New York-New Jersey metropolitanarea designed to select environmentally acceptable alternatives forultimate disposal of sewage sludge. The overall program considersthree aspects of the problem: (1) state of the art of alternativesto ocean dumping of sewage sludge; (2) an in-depth study of selected number of the most environmentally acceptable alterna-tives; and (3) recommendations for a legal-institutional sludge

6

TENTATIVE DECISION TO ISSUETENTATIVE DECISION TO DENY

’]ST FOR HEARING

HEARING

~IO!. I OF APPLICATION

ISSUANCE OF PERMIT

! ION

OF COAST

FIGURE 1. PERMIT PROCEDURES

~ion Subm~

o~offT~chnical Evaluationeed and AlternativesRegion_

Initiating Region ForwardsApplication and Technical Evaluations

with Recommendations forIssuance or Denial of Permit

Site Region EvaluatesImpact of Proposed Dumping

on Site

Disposal Site RegionForwards Application with

Impact Evaluation withRecommendations for

Issuance or Denial of Permitto Headquarters

,ters Reviews Informationfrom both Regions and Makes

Tentative Determinationsfor Issuance or Denial of Permit

four Heq Public Notice is given inboth Regions with Opportunity

aring in both Regions

JI Recommendations Forwarded I

!-to Admirdstrator~_~

FIGURE2. INTER-REGIONAL PERMITS

8

management system. During 1974, preliminary investigationswere completed on amounts and types of municipal wastes presentlygenerated and projected future volumes. A general survey ofmajor alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge was alsocompleted. This study has the support of all municipal sewagesludge authorities in the area and will be Continued with a targetdate for completion and final report in late 1975.

Region HI, in issuing an interim permit to the City of Phila-delphia in February of 1974, required them to identify sources ofheavy metals to determine whether they should be required toeliminate ocean dumping entirely or whether the sewage sludgecould be brought within the limitations of the criteria. The interimpermit issued to Philadelphia in February of 1975 is currently underreview by the EPA Administrator.

Table 1 lists by Regional offices those permits in force during1974, the type of permit, the material dumped, the date the mostcurrent 1974 permit was issued and expires, and the maximumquantity of waste allowed to be dumped under the permit.

Table 2 lists by EPA Regions those permits de~ied and dumpersphased out during 1974. It should be pointed out that prospectiveapplicants are often encouraged by Regional personnel to seek alter-natives to ocean disposal; these companies do not appear on the"Permits Denied" list since they have not actually filed an appli-cation or gone through the steps prior to issuance or denial of apermit.

Title I of the Act provides that the Coast Guard shall conductsurveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity to preventunlawful transportation of material for dumping, or unlawfuldumping.

The Coast Guard’s enforcement program is keyed to closesurveillance of the disposal of industrial waste materials and spotchecks of sewage sludge and dredged material disposal. Surveil-

ods include escorting or interception of dumping vesselslance meth . . hi s’ lo s,at the dump site by vessels or aircraft, spot checks of s p gand the use of ship-riders to ascertain position and dumping rate.From the inception of the program in April, 1973 to December,1974, there were 983 ocean disposal surveillance missions; 36violation notifications have been referred to EPA encompassing

apparent violations. Table 3 summarizes these violations.1TSh4 large number of violations in the category of dumpers’ failureto notify the Captain of the Port (COTP) is apparently due to problem of communications and bookkeeping involving the

TABLE 1PERMITS IN FORCE DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1974

A~lic ant / T__~p_% P e rmit

Material Date Date

Dumped Issued

Max. quant.Allowed Under

Permit

Safety Projects & Eng.special

Pine State By-Productsspecial

McKie Co.emergency

misc. lab II/20[73reagents

wash-downwater

scrap ferrousmetaltrimgs.

4/04/74

4/22/74

11/15/74

i113/75

512o174

5,500 gal.

180,000 gal.

3,500 T

Middletown Sewerage Auth.interim

Passaic Valley Sew. Auth.interim

Middlesex Co. Sew. Auth.interim

Modern Transp. Co.interim

Bergen Co. Sew. Auth.interim

Linden Roselle Sew. Auth.interim

Joint Meeting of Essex &Union Counties

interim

Borough of Fairfieldinterim

City of Long Beachinterim

sewage sludge 4115/74

II

tl

It

~t

tl

4/14175

It

II

IT

?1

II

4,276 c.y.

672,222 c.y.

422,805 c.y.

471,111 c.y.

294,000 c.y.

240,288 c.y.

160,333 c.y.

10

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)

PERMITS IN FORCE DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1974

licant/T e Permit

County of Nassauinterim

Material Date DateIssue_____~d

sewage sludge 4/15/74 4/14/75

County of Westchesterinterim

West Long Beach Sew. Dist.interim

City of NY-Wards Island P1.interim

City of NY-Hunts Point P1.interim

City of NY-26th Ward PI.interim

City of NY-Coney Isl. P1.interim

City of NY-Owls Head P1.interim

City of NY-Newton Creek P1.interim

City of NY-Tallman Isl. PI.interim

City of NY-Bowery Bay PI.interim

City of NY-Rockaway P1.interim

City of NY-Port Richmond P1.interim

City of NY-Jamaica P1.interim

I1

11

II

11

I!

II

11

I!

II

II

It

11

It

II

11

11

I1

11

II

MaX. (~B_n_t.Allowed Under

Permit

672,600 c.y.

95,250 c.y.

1,852 c.y.

455,779 c.y.

309,247 c.y.

321,363 c.y.

247,117 c.y.

427,561 c.y.

1,181,064 c.y.

92,530 c.y.

481,402 c.y.

55,112 c.y.

66,304 c.y.

365,965 c.y.

ll

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)


licant/T e Permit

City of Glen Coveinterim

Whippany Paper Board Co.interim

Win. Schaefer Septicinterim

Caldwe11 Trucking Co.interim

American Cyanimid (Ag.Div. )interim

Modern Transp. Co.interim

S.B. Thomas, Inc.interim

A&S Transp. Co.interim

American Cyanimidinterim

Allied Chemicalinterim

Upjohn Mfg. Co.interim

DuPont -Grasselliinterim

Material Date DateIssued

sewage sludge 4/15/74 4/14/75

waste acti- 7/15/74 7/14/75rated sludge~

sewage sludge " "& septic tankwastes

sewage sludge& septic tankwastes

waste acti-vated sludge

digester 9/1/74 8/3!/75cleanout

t! II

bakerywaste sludge

digestercleanout

chem. WaSteS

by-producthydrochloricacid

9/01/74 12/31/74

7/15/74 7/14/75

10/31/74 7/14/75

pharmaceu- 9/15/74 9/14/75tical wastes

ind. wastes 10/31/74 7/14/75


Permit

15,000 c.y.

91,250 c.y.

10,400 c.y.

41,500 c.y.

1,300 c.y.

13,200, 000 gal.

I, 082,250 gal.

1,000, 000 gal.

36,500,000 gal.

26,133, 000 gal.

27,375,000 gal.

185,000, 000 gal.

12

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)PERIVdTS IN FORCE DURING CALENDAR yEAR 1974

~e Permit

Merck & Co.interim

Chevron Oil Co.interim

Abbott Chemicalsinterim

NL Industriesinterim

Moran Towing Corp.special

Pfizer Pharmaceuticalsinterim

Merck, Sharp & Dohmeinterim

Amerada Hess Corp.interim

Oxochem Enterpriseinterim

Puerto Rico Olefinsinterim

Sherwin Williams Co.interim

Sobin Chemicals Inc.interim


pharmaceu -tical wastes

refinerywastes


spent sulfatesol. ; inertore slurry

cellar dirtconstructionrubble


pharmaceu~tical wastes

spent caustic

oxo-alcoholwastes

petroleumprocessingwastes

paint mgf.wastes

s alicylalde -hyde mfg.wastes

7/15/74 7/14/75

It

9/15/74

10/31/74

5115/74

9/15/74

tl

7/15/74

g/15/ 4

Max. Quant.Allowed Under

Permit

5,100, 000 gal.

" 10,950, 000 gal.

9/14/75 1,440, 000 gal.

7/14/75 675,000,000gal.

5/14/75 14,580,000 c. R.

9/14/75

I!

7114175

9/14/75

7/15/74 7/14/75

7/15/74 7/14/75

2,500, 000 gal.

25,583,000 gal.

3,239,100 gal.

26,334, 000 gal.

2,412,000 gal.

28,000 gal.

2,000,000 gal.

13

~ ¯ = : , "L.¸:~

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)


Applic ant / T~_e_Pe rmit

International Wire Prod.interim

Water Tunnel Contractorsspecial

Mycalex Corp.interim

Arrow Group IndustriesInterim

Howmet Corp.interim

Worthington Biochemicalinterim

Reheis Chem. Co.interim

Bristol Alpha Corp.interim

M/M Marsinterim

Coca-Cola Co.interim

Curtiss-Wright Corp.interim

Material

sludge fromwire drawing &plating proc.

blasted tunnelrock

water slurry’of inert glass

sludge fromgalvanizing &plating opera-tions

liquid wastefrom mfg. ofmicro -castings

enzyme extrac-tion & fermen-tation wastes

Date DateIssued

7/15/74 7/14/75

5/.15/74 5/14/75

7/15/74 5/3i/75

7/15/74 7/14/75

11 tl

" 5131175

pharmaceu- 10/31/74 7/14/75

tical wastes

pharmaceu- 9/15/74 9/14/75

tical wastes

cleaning 7/15/74 7/14/75

wastes ’

beverage 7/15/74 7/14/75

mfg. wastes

rinsing waste " "

from aircraftcomponents mfg.

¯ Max. quant.Allowed Under

Permit

120, 0O0 gal.

380, 000 T

i, 000, 000 gal.

2,400, 000 gal.

120, 000 gal.

9,300, 000 gal.

5,800,000 gal.

1,092,000 gal.

673,400 gal.

lO, 800, O00gal.

216,000 gal.

14

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)


~ Permit

Eagle Extrusion Corp.interim

Gaess Env. Svc. Corp.interim

Norda, Inc.interim

S.B. Penick & Co.interim

Solvents Recovery Svc.interim

Tenco Div. of Coca Colainterim

Nestle Companyinterim

U.S. Radium Corp.interim

Warner Lambert Co.interim

Material Date

Issue___~d

rinse water 7/15/74sludge fromcleaning paintedalum. extrusions

pharmaceu- 7/15/74ticals & org.chemicals

flavor & fra 7/15/74grance mfg.wastes

plant extracts "wastes

used organic "mat’l recyclingwastes

food mfg.wastes

IIfood mfg.wastes

non-radio- 7/15/74active wastefrom mfg.luminescent chem.

pharm, waste 7/15/74& san. sewagesludge

Date

7/14/75

11/01/74

7114175

tl

II

II

5/31/75

5/31/75

Max, quant.Allowed Under

Permit

96,000 gal.

10, 000, O00 gal,.

1,200, 000 gal’.

2,010, OOO gal.

660, 000 gal’.

250, 000 gal..

5,460, 000 gal,

6, 000, 000 gal.

150, 000 gal"

15

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)


licant/T e Permit

Blue Ridge - Winkler Text.interim

Pfizer, Inc.interim

J.T. Baker Chem. Co.interim

Fritzsche Dodge & Olcottinterim

Evor Phillips Leasing Co.interim

Riegel Products Corp.interim

Keuffel & Esser Co.interim

Schering Corp.interim

Bell Telephone Labs,


wasteactiva- 7/15/74 7/14/75

ted & alumsludge

cosmetics 7/15/74 7/14/75rnfg. wastes

11

manganouscarbonate prod.wastes

org. flavoring i, ,,chem. wastes

waste reclama- i, ,,tion treatmentresidues

resin-impregna-ted paper prod.wastes

residual coat-ing sol. frommfg. reprod.paper

neut. pharm.wastes

etching,plating &photo processwastes

II

9/15/74

7/Z5/ 4

11

9/14/75

8/31/74


Permit

1,8oo, ooo gaL

1,800,000 gal.

1,500, 000 gal.

420, 000 gal.

25,000, 000 gal.

520, 000 gal.

1,300,000 gal.

11,000, 000 gal.

245,000 gal.

16

¯ L<"

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)

PERMITS IN FORCE DURING CALENDAR YEAR i974

" licant/T ePermit

City of Camdeninterim

Rollins Env. Servicesspecial

DuPont - Edge Moorinterim

Crompton & Knowlesspecial

City of Philadelphiainterim

Modern Transp. (municipal)special

Modern Transp. (industrial)special

Sun Oil Co.interim

, Shell Chemical Co.interim

Ethyl Corp.interim

DuPont - Beaumontinterim

DuPont - LaPorteinterim


digestedsewage sludge

ind. wastes

8/21174

9/16174

titanium 11 / 11 / 74dioxide wastes

dye wastes 9/13/74

sewage sludge 2113174

sewage, septic 4/04/74&digester sludge

ind. wastes 4/04/74

spent caustic "//15/74

spent caustic& digestedbiol. sludge

2/13/74

sodium-cal-cium sludge

chemical mfg. "wastes

chemical mfg.wastes

8121175

12/16/74

11/10/75

12/13/74

2/13/75

4/04/75

4/04/75

7115175

2113175

ft

tl

1/01/75

Max. quant.ALlowed Under

Permit

15,000, 000 gal.

1,800, 000 gal.

125, 000, 000 gal.

1,750, 000 gal.

150, 000o 000 gal.

15,600, 000 gal.

2,000, 000 gal.

7,980, 000 gal.

66,000 T

8, 000 drums

3O7, 000 T

268, 000 T

17

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)


App~cant/Type Permit

GAF Corp.interim

DuPont - Belleinterim

___aion IX

H-10 Water Taxi Co.special

U.S. Army Corps of Engs.emergency

~arters

Shell Chemical Co.research

Shell Chemical Co.research

Shell Chemical Co.interim


chemical mfg. 4/15/74 12/31/74wastes

chemical mfg. 5/01/73wastes

4/15/74

wet garbage 2/14/74 2/13/75& drytrash

MV Caribia 12/26/74 12/26/75

organo- 10/10/74 10/26/74chlorinewastes

organo- 11/28/74 12/16/74chlorinewastes

Organo- 12/12/74 1/20/75chlorinewastes

Max. quant.Allowed Undel

Permit

153, 000 T

7, 500 T/n

200 T

26,000 T

4, 200metric tons

4, 200metric tons

8,400metric tons

18

,* - i

TABLE 2

Permits Denied and Dumpers Phased Out During 1974

Region II

Consolidated EdisonGaess Environmental ServicesBell Telephone LaboratoriesAmerada HessRiegel ProductsAnsul CompanyBASF Wyandotte CorporationClorox Company

deniedphased outphased outplant closedphased outwithdrew application.denieddenied

Region HI

Rollins Environmental Services

Region IV

GAFDuPont - BelleDuPont-LaPorteShell Chemical Company*(spent caustic portion of waste)

plant closed

phased outdenied bythe Administratorphased outphased out

19

TABLE 3

Ocean Dumping violations Referred to EPAApril 1973 - December 1974

VIOLATION

Dumping short

CG DISTRICT

37

12

# VIOLATIONS

321

Dumping long

Dumping without permit

Attempted dumping without permit

Violating permit conditions*

Failure to notify COTP

Liquid wastes spilled enroute

No Permit on board

7

HQ1

1

137

11

3

3

3

1

11

1

2114

113

2

1TSq’Total

*(dumping at night, trash/garbage blowing overboard enroute,not sinking on site, etc. )

20

dumpers; the Coast Guard, and EPA. Steps have been taken todevelop improvements in procedures for notification to the COTPof departure and arrival times.

The ocean dumping surveillance and enforcement program hasprompted the development of advanced hardware and techniques.Coast Guard Research and Development is working on a sealedrecording navigation system to be carried aboard dumping vesselswhich should help to provide more efficient enforcement withexisting resources. It should also aid the vessel’s master in hisnavigation.

In several instances the Coast Guard has provided to EPAboth photographic and sworn visual observation evidence of cases

¯ of violation. In one case where evidence of two short dumps waspresented, the violator was assessed a penalty of $40, 000 andrequired to install additonal navigational equipment to insure thatfurther premature dumps would not occur.

Another case of alleged short dumping supported by photographicevidence provided by the Coast Guard was dismissed by EPA as aresult of additional photographic evidence provided by the allegedviolator. What appeared to be sludge discharging from a barge was,in the opinion of the Regional Enforcement Division, the resultingaction of self-propeUed vessels in shallow water. Rather than wastebeing discharged, it was bottom material being disturbed as theresult of certain maneuvers in shallow water. The Coast Guard thenagreed with these findings and the charges contained in the Noticeof Violation were formally withdrawn.

In another instance, two Coast Guard helicopter pilots presentedvisual observation testimony of a short dump. A penalty of $25, 000has been assessed against the violator. Two other cases of violations,one supported by Coast Guard evidentiary material, have resulted infines being levied and, in one case, the permit has not been renewedand the dumping has been terminated.

21

III. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DUMPING ACTIVITY

During the two years that the Act has been in effect all previousunregulated dumping of wastes into ocean waters has come understrict regulation by the Ocean Dumping Permit Program. Thelevel of dumping activity that has occurred under EPA permitssince the program became operational is indicated in Table 4,

The absence of complete and accurate dumping records priorto the implementation of the permit program makes any compar-ison with ocean dumping activity of past years difficult. It isevident, however, that ocean dumping of wastes was increasingwhen the Act was passed. In addition, both the Senate and Houseversions of this Bill re~lected the concern that those pollutants,.which were previously discharged into the Nation’s waters or airand are now restricted by the Federal Water pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Air Act, not end up indis-criminately being dumped in the ocean.

in Table 4 show an increase from 1973 to 1974 inThe data ...... *,-~l wa tes, sewage sludge, and co.nstructlonin ol inou~ ....... s .....the dump g , ¯ ~ --~--~ ..... nd fairly inslgmncanz

debris, with no oumpmg o~ exp~u~w~ ---dumping of solid waste (in this case, garbage from foreign vesselswhich is prohibited by law for health reasons from being broughtto shore). The permit program went into effect in mid-1973,so the data for that year reflect eight months of dumping activityextrapolated for 12 months to estimate an annual rate.

In implementing the ocean dumping permit program,EPA requires a thorough evaluation in all applications of the needfor ocean dumping and the availability of alternate methods ofdisposal. This approach has required a number of industrialdumpers to seek other alternatives. The two years from 1973through 1974 represent, in most cases, the time that it hastaken industrial dumpers to pursue other alternatives and buildtreatment plants or implement other methods of waste disposal.

On the Atlantic coast alone, 47 former dumpers ceased oceandumping either by the time the Act went into effect or after havinginitially received permits. Another nine companies have eitherwithdrawn their applications or have been denied permits. Atleast 14 current dumpers are scheduled to cease ocean dumpingin June, 1975, and eight more in June, 1976. The increase inamount of industrial wastes dumped in the Atlantic does notrepresent new dumpers, but rather the industrial growth duringwhich time the companies have been seeking alternatives to oceandumping. In fact, the amount of wastes dumped into the Gulf ofMexico decreased measurably because four out of the sevenoriginal permittees had implemented alternatives to oceandumping by the end of 1974.

[fl

r~,--

00

0 oo

o~-,I

.00

~o~

00

~

~’~o ~,~ ~ ~.~

@

24

The increase in the amount of sewage sludge being ocean dumpedoff the Atlantic coast is due to increased plant capacity and addi-tional levels of treatment of municipal waste, not to an increasednumber of municipal dumpers. About five million cubic yards ofmunicipal sludge were dumped in the New York Bight in 1974.Upgrading present treatment facilities to secondary level (9070reduction of BOD and suspended solids), plus treatment of thepresent raw sewage discharges, will significantly increase thevolume of sludge to be handled. Unless environmentally accept-able alternate sludge disposal methods are developed this additionalsludge will be dumped in the ocean.

The increase in construction rubble is due primarily to thecurrent work on the Harlem River water supply tunnel. Theconstruction debris from this project is being transportedto the cellar dirt site and ocean dumped.

As indicated in Table 4 ocean dumping of barged wastesis currently utilized as a disposal technique predorninately on

the East and Gulf Coasts for industrial wastes and on the EastCoast alone for sewage sludge. This is not merely becausethese areas have failed to fully pursue alternatives to oceandisposal, but rather a combined result of historical usage ofocean dumpir~ and immediate unavailability of alternate methods

of disposal.

The use of ocean outfall pipes and the availability of land fordisposal on the West Coast have made unnecessary the bargingof wastes to the ocean, inland disposal of municipal effluents andsludges in the Gulf Coast states has prevented the developmentof ocean dumping of municipal wastes into the Gulf of Mexico.On the other hand, it has been those areas open to the sea witha high density of population and industrial development such asmetropolitan New York and Philadelphia that have turned toocean dumping. Now these industrial and municipal dumpers arebeing required to evaluate the alternatives to ocean disposal.

Based on the concentrations of specific constituents analyzedto be in wastes dumped in the ocean, the annual input of theseconstituents from ocean dumping can be determined° Somecalculations have been made for the amount of mercury andcadmium dumped off the Altantic Coast as "trace contaminants"

in wastes (Table 5).

25

TABLE 5

Annual Inputs of Mercury and Cadmium Due to Ocean DumpingOff The Atlantic Coast

1974 1973

Mercury Cadmium Mercury Cadmium

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Region II

Industrial 17 69 145¯ 2,998

Region ]I

Municipal 3,532 34, 817 5,998 33,173

Region HI

Industrial, 744

Region HI

Municipal , 13,640*

*Data not available

26

In Region II, 99.5 percent of the mercury and 99.8 percent ofthe cadmium dumped in the ocean comes from the municipalsewage sludge, with only 0.5 percent of the mercury and 0.2percent of the cadmium from industrial wastes. A similar sit-uation is noted for Region III where the mass loading of cadmiumfrom municipal wastes is 94.8 percent of the total cadmium whiledumping of waste acid accounts for 5.2 percent of the totalcadmium.

EPA permits authorize the use of 33 barges in ocean dumpingoperations. These are listed in Table 6. Six of the barges areself-propelled ocean-going vessles; the remainder are not self-propelled and require the services of a tugboat.

During 1974, about 1,900 barging trips were made to dumpwastes at the 11 disposal sites at which dumping is permittedby EPA (See Table 7}.

The cost to the permittee of ocean dumping as a disposaltechnique varies with the type of waste, the distance to thedumpsite, and permit requirements. A general estimate canbe made of dumping costs by waste categories:

Mixed Industrial Wastes

Acid Wastes

Sewage Sludge

$12-$14/cubic yard

$ 2-$ 6/cubic yard

$ 2-$ 6/cubic yard

27

TABLE6

Barges Authorized for Ocean Dumpingby F PA Permits Under The Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as Amended

permitted permitted

Bar e Trans orter(s} _.____~uarture Point(s)___

Region IMary M Safety Projects

& Eng.

Hingham, MA

Carolinian Pine StateBy-Products

Portland, ME

permittedWaste T~_

indust.

indust.

Region IINewtown Creek

Coney Island

Owls Head

Bowery Bay

Ocean Disposal #1

Liquid Waste #1

Sparkling Waters

Susan Frank

AC5

City of NY-EPA

City of NY-EPA

City of NY-EPA

City of NY-EPA

A&S Trans. Co.A&S Trans. Co. andWeeks Dredg.& Contract.

Modern Trans. Co.

A&S TranS. Co.PCI Internat’l Inc.Modern Trans. Co.

Spentonbush Trans.Servic e

General MarineTrans. Co.

General MarineTrans. Co. & OceanDisposal Co.

Allied ChemicalCorp.

N.Y., NY

N.Y., NY

N.Y., NY

N.Y., NY

So. Kearny, NJArecibo, PR

So. Kearny, NJArecibo, PR

N.Y., NY

Bayonne, NJ

Morristown, NJ

sludge

sludge

sludge

sludge

indust.sludge

indust.pharma.

indust.

sludge

acid

28

TABLE 6 (CON’T)

p ermitted permitted

Bar e Trans orter(s)De arture Point(s)

Region VI Beaumont, TXPATCO-100 Port Arthur

Towing Co. LaPorte, TX

Triton Port ArthurBeaumont, TX

Towing Co. LaPorte, TXTexas City, TX

H.L. Jacobs DuPont LesseeBeaumont, TXLaPorte, TX

Z-If0

Z-120

Z-122

2502

Z-Ill

GAF #1

Chem 810

Offshore No. 2405

Magnolia I

Domar OceanTrans. Ltd.


Domar OceanTranS. Ltd.


Domar OceanTranS. Ltd.

Port ArthurTowing Co.

Dixie Carriers Inc.

Dixie Carriers Inc.

Lockport ChemicalCo. (Chem. WasteDisposal Co. )

Beaumont, TXLaPorte, TX




LaPorte, TX

Texas City, TX

Deer Park, TX

Deer Park, TX

Baton Rouge, LA

PermittedWaste T_ZP~_

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indust.

indu st.

Region IXM/V Ramona

H-10 DisposalBarge I

H-10 Water TaxiCo., Ltd.

H-10 Water TaxiCo., Ltd.

Los Angeles, CALong Beach, CA

Los Angeles, CALong Beach, CA

garbage

garbage

5O

TABLE 7

Barge Trips for Ocean Dumping

Region I

Mixed Industrial WasteOther

Total

Number ofTrips

14

Region Ii

Mixed Industrial WasteAcid WasteSewage SludgeOther

Total

1967924O0

*

Region III

Mixed Industrial WasteAcid WasteSewage Sludge

Total

12597

---2"22--

Region VI

Mixed Industrial WasteOcean Incineration

Total

2194

-’T2W-

Region IX

Garbage 16

Total number of ocean dumping trips

*Data not available

1854

31

IV. BASELINE SURVEY PROGRAM

Section 102(c) of the Act authorizes the Administrator designate recommended sites or times for dumping, con-sidering the criteria of Section 102(a). When the interim regU-lations were published, a list of interim dump sites was included.These sites were selected from existing information on oceandumping and were selected based on historical usage, not onenvironmental criteria governing the selection of sites to minimizedamage to the marine environment. This was recognized as atemporary expedient, and EPA has since made the commitment thatit will comply with the requirements of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act in the designation of ocean dumping sites for continuinguse.

Regulations are now being developed to establish the proceduresby which ocean dumping sites will be designated for continuing use;these procedures will include the preparation of an EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS} for virtually all ocean dumpsites presentlyin use or proposed for use.

The preparation of an acceptable EIS on an ocean dumping siterequires the collection of a large amount of environmental data atthe site itself and in nearby areas to form the basis for an environ-mental assessment of the site and to predict the impact of dumpingon the site. The data collection requirements needed for anenvironmental assessment of a dump site have been formalized intoa standard baseline survey guideline.

This baseline survey guideline was developed in consultationwith NOAA and serves as the basic plan for all baseline surveys,with appropriate modifications being made to meet special situations.The basic plan in any baseline survey is to take samples of bothwater and sediments to determine the levels of specific chemicalparameters in and near the dumpsite. Of particular interest aretrace metals and persistent organic compounds that might be presentin wastes dumped at the site. Samples are also taken of livingorganisms at and near the site in the water column, at the bottom,and in the sediments. This broad scale sampling is needed to providedata on the widest possible range of ecological features at the dumpsite so.that an accurate assessment can be made of what the impactof pollutants would be at the dumpsite.

Before any acceptable appraisal of conditions at a dumpsite ispossible, the full range of seasonal or other periodic variationsin conditions must be observed. The baseline survey programwas begun during FY 1974, and during FY 1975, additional studies

have begun. A brief synopsis of each baseline survey presentlybeing conducted follows.

1. Alternate Sewage Sludge Dumpsite in the New York Bight

Sewage sludge from the New York metropolitan area is cur-rently being dumped at a site approximately twelve miles fromrecreational beaches. While no impact on the beaches has yetbeen seen from sludge dumped at this site, increased sewagetreatment in the New York metropolitan area will result inmuch greater volumes of sludge to be disposed of during thenext few years. Much of this sludge may have to be oceandumped as an interim measure until a permanent form of ulti-mate disposal is selected and implemented.

In early 1974, EPA requested NOAA to recommend areasfarther out in the New York Bight for study as alternate sludgedumping sites. NOAA recommended two areas, one just north ofthe Hudson Canyon and the other just to the south of the HudsonCanyon; EPA has begun studies, by contract, of the area recom-mended by NOAA just north of the Hudson Canyon and about 60miles from Ambrose Light. The contract calls for three surveysapproximately three months apart depending on weather conditions.The first survey was conducted during September and October,1974; the second was conducted during January and February,1975; and the third survey is scheduled for July and August 1975.

The study area, one of those recommended by NOAA, is 144square miles and data have been collected at 15 biological stations,five chemical stations, and three current measurement stations.The study area is fairly typical of an open continental shelf environ-ment with a fairly flat and featureless bottom and a diverse biologicalcommunity. Seasonai differences between the first two surveyswere observed, particularly in number and variety of organismspresent in the water column. From this site, where no oceandumping is now occurring, small quantities of slag were recoveredin some samples and small plastic spheres were recovered fromsurface tows. Neither of these materials is typical of sewage sludge.

In addition to providing the required data for an EnvironmentalImpact Statement, a major output of this study will be the develop-ment of a monitoring program for the alternate sludge disposal site.

34

2. Philadelphia and DuPont Dumpsites off Delaware Bay.

Prior to the beginning of the Ocean Dumping Permit Program,Philadelphia had been dumping sewage sludge at a location approxi-mately 11 miles seaward of the mouth of Delaware Bay. In April,1973, EPA issued an interim ocean dumping permit to Philadelphiafor ocean disposal of sewage sludge, but required the city to usea site about 50 nautical miles southeast of the mouth of theDelaware Bay. Philadelphia has used this designated site up tothe present time. This site is quite close to the site being usedby DuPont for the disposal of waste acid.

Prior to use of the present site by Philadelphia, a single base-line survey of the site was conducted, and since then surveyshave been made on a quarterly basis. These surveys have beena cooperative effort among EPA, universities, industries, andNOAA. About 20-24 stations are sampled on each survey, primarilyfor trace metals in sediments and in organisms. Direct observationswere also made in August, 1974, using a manned submersible.

The close proximity of these two dumpsites makes it logisticallyeconomical to study them both at the same time. The differencein composition between the two wastes makes it possible to usedifferent constituents as tracers to describe the movement of

re. Using this technique statistically significant differenceseach was ........... -’-- ^~ trace metals in sediments andin the geograpnlcaA cxs~rlDuL~u- v-in some organisms have been found. Additional studies are beingconducted to quantify the nature and extent of these differencesand to establish cause and effect relationships.

3. Toxic Industrial Wastes Dumpsite, East of Cape Henlopen,Delaware.

This dumpsite is located 106 nautical miles southeast of AmbroseLight (at ~be entrance to New York Harbor} and approximately 90nautical miles due east of Cape Henlopen, Delaware. The areais bounded by 38°4o’N to 39°00’N and 72°00’w to 72°30’W. Thesite is off the continental shelf at depths ranging from 1550 metersin the northwest corner of the site to 2750 meters in the relativelyflat southeast corner. The bottom, for the most part, is character-

ru ed topography. A major topographic feature of theized by a gg ¯ ~ -" o +~ ~he rth, northeast and east ofregion, the Hucson ~anyon, ¯ .......

no

the toxic waste dumpsite.

This site is used by over 30 different ocean dumpers in the NewYork - New Jersey area for the disposal of industrial chemicals.

In 1974, a total of 1,148 million gallons of wastes were disposed ofin the site, of which 41 million gallons were in sludge (semi-viscous)form. All the remaining wastes were in liquid form. Wastesare dumped by barge just beneath the water’s surface at a nominalspeed of 5 knots. Typical waste materials are hydrochloric acidby-products, inert ore slurry from production of titanium dioxidepigments, residual sludge from galvanizing and plating operations,liquid wastes from textile manufacturing, liquid wastes frometching and photographic processes, water solutions of inorganicsalts, and similar materials resulting from diverse manufacturingprocesses. Containerized radioactive wastes were dumped ina location just south of the present site several years ago andprior to enactment of the act.

In May, 1974, NOAA began a series of baseline surveys ofthis dumpsite in cooperation with EPA, the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, andthe Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University,and the Smithsonian Institution.

Another cruise is planned for July, 1975, and the final base-line cruise is planned for February, 1976. The July cruise willmake use of the manned submersible ALVIN, and attempts alsowill be made to collect data at the radioactive waste dumpingarea south of the dumpsite.

The hydrography of the dumpsite area is complex and thecurrents are seasonally variable. Any one of three water massesmay be present at different times or at different levels in thewater column: shelf, slope, and Gulf Stream water have all beenidentified. Circulation patterns are affected by mixing acrossfrontal zones. Currents run predominantly southward along thecoast, while the Gulf Stream runs generally northeastward. Theslopewater may circulate in a cyclonic gyre. Surface circulationis primarily a function of season.

In addition to hydrography, studies have also been made in thewater column of the occurrence and, in some cases, relative abun-dance of nutrients, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton.

The bottom of the dumpsite has also been investigated by meansof echo-sounding, photography, trawling, and quantitative samplingin order to describe aspects of geology, geochemistry, and benthicfauna.

Investigations have been made of heavy metal and other con-taminants in water, sediments, and in the tissues of larger benthic

fishes and invertebrates.

4. Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste Dumping Site.

Low-level radioactive wastes were dumped in deep-oceandisposal sites off the coasts of California and Maryland - Delawarebetween the years 1946 and 1966. The gradual phasing out of thispractice began in 1962 and was replaced by burial of the radio-active wastes on land. Currently there is no ocean dumping ofradioactive wastes but many government agencies have expressedinterest in resuming this waste disposal alternative.

With the passage of the Act, EPA was given responsibilityfor developing regulations controlling ocean dumping of wastesincluding radioactive wastes not specifically prohibited by statute,Dumping of high.-level radioactive wastes and radiological warfareagents is specifically prohibited. The final regulations and criteriafor ocean dumping, issued October 15, 1973, require that anyradioactive materials to be dumped must be containerized andthat the container and]or inert matrix retaining the waste mustallow the material to radiodecay to innocuous levels before anyrelease to the marine environment.

In order to expand on this requirement and to evaluate anypermit requests, it is necessary to obtain information on pastdisposal operations to answer such questions as:

(1) Were past disposal practices adequate to prevent anyenvironmental damage ?

(2) Were techniques used in packaging the radioactivematerials adequate to insure their retention ?

(3) If dumping should commence in the future, is it techno-logically feasible to adequately survey or monitor aradioactive waste dumpsite to detect any potentiallyadverse effects ?

To obtain preliminary answers to these questions EPAdeveloped a pilot study to investigate a formerly used radioactivewaste dumpsite located approximately forty miles west-southwestof San Francisco, California, near the Farallon Islands, andcentered at coordinates 37° 39’N, 123° 08’W, at a water depthof 3,000 feet.

In order to accurately locate and sample within the dumpsite,and to photographically document the condition of the radioactivewaste containers EPA selected an unmanned, tethered sub-mersible, the CURV llI (Cable-Controlled Underwater Recovery

\#

Vehicle), for this study. The CURV HI is operated by the NavalUndersea Center in San Diego, California, and has a depthcapability of 10, 000 feet.

The pilot study was conducted from August 23 through August 31,1974, with the EPA Office of Radiation Programs supplying thechief scientist to coordinate the operation.

During the course of the study the operations team achievedthe following:

(1) First location of an actual radioactive waste dumpsitewith supporting documentation as to actual years of usage. (Thisis important in determining corrosion rates of the containers,number of containers dumped, and relative inventory of thedumped materials from which to assess any radionuclide dispersion. )

(2) First videotape and 35ram coverage documenting the con-ditions of the radioactive waste containers.

(3) First precision-located sediment samples in a radioactivewaste disposal area. (This was achieved using a videotape moni-toring system coupled with a specially-devised rosette coringde-,B..c e ̄ )

(4) Examination of large sponges up to four feet high (possiblya new genus) attached to the radioactive waste containers; thesemay contribute to the biodeterioraiion of metal containers at the3,000-foot depth.

(5) DocUmentation of edible species of fish in the immediatevicinity of the containerized radioactive wastes, supportingpotential foodchain transfer.

EPA obtained much preliminary information on container in-" d desiEn. Through existing records and correspondencetegmt.y ~nn to ast disposal operations m the region of the Farallon

pertain g P photographedIslands, it was possible to determine the age of thecontainers as between 20-22 years old. Those radioactive wastespackaged in an inner matrix of concrete have maintained rela-tively good integrity while those packaged in a gel matrix witha tar liner did not retain the wastes as well. Radionuclide analysesfor strontium, cesium, uranium, thorium, radium, plutonium, andgross gamma activity are currently being completed, and an oper-ations report on the Farallon Islands pilot study is soon to bepublished. Preliminary results of radiochemical analyses ofsediment samples have detected some levels of plutonium above

38

background in the dumpsite. The implications of the findingsare under investigation and the results will be included in aforthcoming technical report.

5. Proposed industrial Waste Dumpsite in the Eastern Gulf ofMexico

During the summer of 1974, consideration was being given tothe disposal of wastes from the E.I. du Pont de Nemours plant atBelle, West Virginia, at a site in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Aspart of its permit application DuPont conducted, by contract, abaseline survey of the proposed dumpsite and continental shelfareas to the north and east. The permit was ultimately denied andthe site has never been used. The results of this baseline survey,however, offer an analysis of environmental conditions in tropicalopen ocean areas,

The area chosen for this dumpsite is 170 nautical miles south-east of the Mississippi River and 230 nautical miles due southof Pensacola, Florida. It is in the deepest part of the Gulf ofMexico (about 3,000 meters) and is about 100 nautical milesfrom the continental shelf to the north and east of the dump site.

Physical, chemical, and biological investigations were con-ducted for E.I. du Pont de Nemours in the Gulf of Mexico inJune, 1974. These investigations were designed by DuPont andthe Environmental Protection Agency to provide baseline dataat a proposed disposal site and at continental shelf stations. Fivestations in the eastern midgulf (about 27°N, 87°W) were investi-gated between June 2-4, 1974; seven stations along the continentalshelf (from east of Tampa, Florida, to south of New Orleans,Louisiana) were investigate d between June 7-13, 1974.

current velocities in the midgulf were approximately one knotto the southeast, consistent with the range of current valuesreported by the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office (1972) for thegeneral April - June period. Dissolved oxygen levels in themidgulf were close to the levels found in surface seawater wherebiological activity is not excessive. Ambient light transmissionlevels showed 1 percent transmission to as deep as 100 meters.All of the chemical analyses of seawater from the midgulf producedresults at or below levels for general ocean water with mostvariables below their detection limits. Plankton levels of themidgulf had a mean of 325 individuals per liter. This number,while low in comparison to inshore waters, is in agreement withhistorical data for the mid-Gulf of Mexico.

Current velocities at shelf stations were in general agree-ment with historical data. Dissolved oxygen levels at shelfstations were generally close to the quantity found in surfaceseawater when biological activity is not excessive. Chemicalanalysis results of seawater from the shelf stations were approxi-mately the same as had been measured in the midgulf. In addi-tion to some trace organics, only mercury and antimony con-centrations were higher than levels for general ocean water.Sediment analyses for shelf stations showed barium and cadmiumconcentrations higher than USGS reported levels. Four pesticidesand some aromatic hydrocarbons were found in the sediment;concentrations of these materials were only slightly aboveminimum detectable concentrations. Grain sizes of shelf sedi-ment agreed with historical data. Chemical analyses of planktonshowed heavy metal concentrations generally lower than historicaldata. Zooplankton counts, to some extent, paralleled the phyto-plankton counts. No species of zooplankton or benthos wasconspicuous by either presence or absence. In general, resultswere in agreement with available historical data in all aspectsof this investigation.

4O

V. EPA RESEARCH PROGRAMS

No sharp line can be drawn between permit operations, baselinesurveys, and research within the overall EPA approach towardimplementation of the ocean dumping permit program. Technicalassistance for permit operations is provided in specialized areasby the EPA Office of Research and Development. Much informationof value to EPA’s research efforts is collected in permit operationsand monitoring and baseline survey activities conducted by EPARegions and the Office of Water and Hazardous Materials which isresponsible for coordinating the national ocean dumping permitprogram.

The EPA Office of Research and Development has been con-cerned with marine pollution problems for many years. Theprojects supported under this program have been historicallyoriented toward estuarine pollution problems and those related toocean outfall disposal. With the passage of the Ocean DumpingAct in 1972, some of these activities were reoriented to providea sharper focus on problems related specifically to ocean dumping,while research directed toward solving other marine pollutionproblems was strengthened.

Research efforts related to the ocean dumping permit programwithin EPA have been focused in three areas since the inceptionof the program in 1973. These are: (1) criteria development,(2) methods development, and (3) environmental impact assess-ment. Highest initial priority has been given to the developmentand improvement of criteria and analytical methodology, and asthese efforts have brought positive results, additional resourceshave been devoted to research directed toward the assessmentof environmental impact.

Of particular concern has been the development of acute andchronic toxicity levels for mercury and cadmium in ocean watersand the application of these values to the ocean disposal criteria.As a result of contract studies with the National Academy ofSciences directed toward the revision of water quality criteria,in addition to recent results of in-house EPA research efforts,information is now available which provides a basis for con-sideration of modification of the published criteria for mercuryand cadmium; revised criteria for these constituents may beproposed in the near future.

Initial efforts on analytical methodology have resulted in thedevelopment of an interim" Ocean Dumping Analytical Met.hodsManual which is currently in use by EPA Regions ana perml~applicants. As part of this effort a manual of standard bioassay

41

! !_. a

techniques has been compiled and revised as the state of knowledgehas advanced. During the coming year the bioassay techniqueswill be revised to incorporate more sophisticated methods ofdetecting chronic effects of pollutants on marine organisms.

The environmental impact of ocean dumping is being studieddirectly by in-house EPA activities as well as through grants andcontracts. These efforts are being concentrated in three generalareas: trace metal impacts, impacts of persistent organiccompounds such as pesticides, and modeling techniques to pre-dict impactS.

The following studies are being conducted on the movementand impact of trace metals in marine waters. While many ofthese studies deal primarily with estuarine situations, theresults can, in most cases, be extrapolated to ocean dumpingsituations.

I. An industrial Waste dump site and a sewage sludge dump .... ,,site are being used to test the concept ol analy~leaL1y zmgerprln~Inga waste material by trace metal analysis. Research efforts haveattempted to follow the fate of each waste by following particularmetal "tags". Results to date indicate an increase in trace metalsin benthic invertebrates at and around the dump sites. Futureefforts will extend the sampling areas in an effort to delineatethe total area of effect of the dumping activities.

2. At a dredged material disposal site in Rhode Island Sound,where material containing high concentrations of heavy metalshas been deposited, a clear demonstration of deleterious eco-logical impact is developing. Preliminary data indicate high"cadmium and zinc concentrations in the water directly over thedredged material deposit. Histological examinations of tissuesfrom the clam Arctica islandica have revealed kidney damagingconcretions in ~oun~r as five miles from the site.Tissue damage was greater in clams found closer to the site.Concentrations of selected metals in clam tissues have been shownto be very high relative to uncontaminated controls. Crabs caughton the dredged material showed abnormally eroded and discoloredcarapaces.

3. An extensive field sampling program to evaluate the effectsof metals on benthic animals has been conducted in lower NarragansettBay, R. L This study was designed to develop techniques for evaluatingthe ecological impact of a typical industrial discharge containinglarge quantities of heavy metals. Metal contamination of benthoshas been demonstrated.

42

tud of the movement of trace materials from sewage4. As ..,~..,,~ biota is being performed.. While prime emphasissludge ll,~u ~,~ .....is on metal transport and uptake, consideration is also being givento investigations of the ecological behavior of chlorinated hydro-

carbons.

¯ 1 d "Dred e Spoils and Sewage Sl~adge in the5. A study entlt e .~ ..... =+~1 war rs" will developTrace Metal Budget of Esruamne ana ~u~ ....... efield methods for assessing metal fluxes from natural sediments.The study will attempt to develop correlations between water column

metal levels and sediment metal concentrations in the Hudson Riverestuary and the New York Bight.

6. A mathematical model to assess the effects of time de-pendent and time independent sewage sludge stress on marineplankton systems is under development.

7. A -rant entitled "Influence of Dredged Spoils a, nd.~Seudis~entPollution ~n Trace IV[etal Assimilation by Organlsms v~controlled laboratory experiments simulating ocean dump sites toassess metal fluxes between sediments and overlying water.

8. A grant to assess contaminant impacts in a historical con-text will use various radioisotope determinations to date sedimentlayers in core samples taken from strategic locations along theEast Coast. It is hoped that contaminant concentrations willcorrelate with the age of each layer to provide an estimate of

historical trends of pollution on the Atlantic shelf.

9. A grant entitled "Transport, Fate and Geochemical Inter-action of Mercury, Cadmium and Inorganic Pollutants in the Coastal

Littoral and Salt Marsh Environment of the Southeastern UnitedStates" is attempting to describe the behavior of discharged

heavy metals.

10. A grant entitled "Chemistry of IV[ercury in Natural Waters"is tracing the pathways of mercury in the marine environment.particular emphasis is being made on the fate and mobility ofmercury in sediments, surface waters, pore water and biota inthe estuaries of the Gulf Coast region.

The impact of persistent organic compounds, particularlypesticides and halogenated hydrocarbons, is a matter of major

research interest to EPA. In-house research efforts are directedtoward determining the ecosystem perturbations resulting from thepresence of environmental levels of these materials and developingbioassay techniques to assess such impacts on a routine basis.

In addition to the in-house efforts, the following grant or contractstudies are underway:

1. "A Synoptic Survey of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Inputs tothe Southern California Bight" is providing information on the ratesat which chlorinated hydrocarbons enter the coastal waters of theSouthern California Bight¯ Sources of chlorinated hydrocarbons,such as land runoff, wastewater effluent, direct industrial discharge,vessel anti-fouling paint, aerial fallout, and ocean current adveotionare being investigated¯ The effects of ocean outfalls on the structureand incidence of disease in biotic assemblages are also being studied¯

A .... + ~,~+*led "Accumulation of Persistent Organic ~,_,,¯ ~ -~-~’~’-’~’~-,~kton and Influence on Phytoplankton ~rov~nCompounas m rllyLVg~L~

is being performed in the Puget Sound region.

On a broader scale, EPA research is directed toward theapplication of mathematical modeling techniques to predict thefate of pollutants in the marine environment and to assess theireffects on marine ecosystems.

1. An in-house study of ocean dumping impact in the New YorkBight will provide information essential to proper managementof ocean disposal sites. The purpose of the project is to developa predictive capability to describe the fate of sewage sludge dis-charged from moving barges into a near-shore ocean environment.Mathematical models have been devised to predict the time-spa-tial distribution of sewage sludge originating from barge disposal.Work is being performed to field-verify this model¯ A biologicalbaseline of the natural condition of benthic communities in theNew York Bight has been established for comparative study ofexisting and future environmental alterations due to ocean disposal.

¯ Another in-house study is developing biological assessment2 ........ ~-- "~-e~lth ’’ of marine ecosystems usingtechniques to aetermm~ ~a~ ,~biological indices. This approach can be used to assess the impactof stresses such as ocean dumping and outfall discharges uponcommunity strUcture and population dynamics of locally residingbiota in polluted and non-polluted marine environments.

3. A numerical hydrodynamic model study for the pollutantflushing in prudhoe Bay, Alaska is being carried out in-house.A limited field investigation will be undertaken during the ice-freeseason this summer.

4. The usefulness of currently available analytical techniquesfor objective and quantitative evaluation of species, populations,

and community responses to environmental changes will be thefocus of a grant entitled "Quantitative Response Characteristicsof Coastal Fish and Benthic Invertebrate Communities. "

5. A study entitled "Biological Analysis of Primary Pro-ductivity and Related Processes in New York Harbor as Reflectiveof Changing Water Quality" is investigating those processes andfactors which might contribute to massive algal blooms. This studywill provide information relevant to the kinds of treatment requiredfor municipal waste discharges. In addition, the study will inves-tigate whether the water quality of the New York harbor region isbeing affected by materials flowing into the area from offshoresludge dumping sites.

6. A grant entitled "Fate of Pollutants Discharged from CoastalOutfalls is investigating the chemical factors affecting the fateof pollutants. This will include field and laboratory studies.

7. A grant entitled "Retention of Pollutants in Fjords" is inits third year. Here, mathematical models of circulation, nutrienttransport and phytoplankton dynamics have been simulated andcompared with historical data in Puget Sound. Present plans callfor further study of the deep circulation below the sill depth andfurther biological work.

8. As part of a grant entitled "Biological Control of MicrobialPollutants in Natural Waters, " a mathematical model of the die-offof bacteria released from ocean outfalls has been developed.

4s

VI. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL¯ 1

Under the authority of Section 103 of the Act, dredged materlamay be dumped under permits granted by the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers after the proposed permit has been reviewed and

b EPA. In issuing such permits the Corps is requiredagreed upon y . _ _, ^ asible, but the Corps mayto use EPA-deslgnat=d =it=s wherever feuse other sites if:

1} they determine that disposal at the EPA sites is noteconomically feasible, and

2} EPA makes the determination that such disposal will nothave an unacceptable adverse effect on the environment.

Each EPA Regional Office is provided copies of Public Noticeof the Corps’ intent to issue a permit for dredging and disposalof dredged material. Each notice is reviewed for its compliancewith the EPA criteria for disposal in the ocean. During 1974,about 110 such notices were reviewed. Region I (Boston) reviewed

¯ New York) 50, Region ILI (Philadelphia} 1, Region20, Region II ( . ¯ Ocean dis osalIV (Atlanta) 20, and Region IX (San Francisco)

P

of dredged materials in Regions VI and X (Dallas and Seattle) done by the Corps.

Table 8 shows the volume of dredged material dumpedhis shows a volume more than twice that dumped

during CY 74. T ....... ~ in the LowerMississippiduring 1973. Most of the increase oc~t,~=~,Valley (the New Orleans District of the Corps of Engineers). Thisincrease is caused by the additional dredging of the MississippiRiver required from the results of flooding in the lower MississippiValley over the past two years. This volume may be expected tobe at a similar or perhaps greater level next year. Additionalincreases may be expected during the next few years in severalDistricts resulting from the dredging required to deepen channelsto the home bases for the U.S. Navy’s new submarines.

The River and Harbor Act of 1970 (P. L. 91,611) authorizedthe Chief of Engineers, under the direction of the Secretary ofthe Army, to conduct a comprehensive program of research,study, and experimentation relating to dredged material. In May1971 the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station atVicksburg, Mississippi, was assigned the task of defining andassessing the problem and developing a research program.

47

TABLE 8

DREDGED MATERIAL DUMPED IN OCEAN - 1974

Permits Total

New England Division

North Atlantic Division

South Atlantic Division

Lower Mississippi Valley Division

Southwestern Division

South Pacific Division

North Pacific Division

1,340,400

8,234, 543

2,931,748

54, 600,000

9,743,982

7,162,918

5,982,280

921,800 2,262,200

3,475,849 11,710, 392

2,979,500 5,911,248

- 54, 600,000

- 9,743,982

1,292,500 8,455,418

- 5,982,280

8,669, 649 98,665, 520

48

A five-year Dredged Material Research Program wasconceived with the objective of providing through researchdefinitive information on the environmental impact o~ dredgingand dredged material disposal operations and to develop technicallysatisfactory, environmentally safe, and economically feasibledredging and disposal alternatives, including consideration ofdredged material as a natural resource. Execution of theprogram was assigned to the Waterways Experiment Station andresearch was initiated in March 1973. The Corps estimatesthe total cost of this research program at $30 million.

The Dredged Material Research Program is divided into4 projects, each directed by a full-time project manager andeach with its own project staff:

- Aquatic Disposal Research Project

- Habitat Development Research Project

- Disposal Operations Research Project

- Productive Uses Research Project

Although all of the above projects have a bearing on oceandisposal of dredged material, the Aquatic Disposal Research Projectis perhaps the most significant. The objective of this project isto determine the magnitude and extent of effects of aquaticdisposal on organisms and the quality of surrounding water, andthe rate, diversity~ and extent disposal sites are recolonized bybenthic organisms.

The Dredged Material Research Program consists of 150 workunRs and by the end of 1974, the program was about 40 percentcompleted. The Corps anticipates completing the program by

FY ’78, as originally planned.

Some of the more significant findings of the program todate have been:

o The historical dumping in the Pacific Ocean site off the mouthof the Columbia River does not appear to have had a chemicalor water quality impact on the surrounding area. The bottomdwelling biota in the Pacific Ocean site appear to be enricheddue to the accumulation of finer grained sediments on thebottom. The physical impact of dumping at the Pacific Oceansite appears minimal.

49

o Historical disposal (75 years) at Eatons Neck (Long IslandSound) gives no indications of detrimental water quality andbiological impact on Long Island Sound. The fishing isexcellent in the area and bottom biota representative of central

Long Island Sound, The physical impact of the historicaldumping in Long Island Sound (13,000, 000 Cu. yds. ) hasresulted in piles or mounds on the bottom. These mounds,in turn, are reported to have enhanced lobster habitats.

o Turbidity increases during disposal at a site off Galveston,Texas, could not be detected over background levels due tostorm-induced natural turbidity.

o Toxic heavy metals and organic pesticides do not appear tobe released and are apparently very stable in sediments.

o Aerobic conditions in disposal site water retard the releaseof some nutrients and most toxic heavy metals. Anoxicconditions in disposal site water enhance the release of somenutrients and only a few toxic heavy metals.

o Most chemicals do not appear to be released from underwaterdredged material deposits at greater rates than those releasedfrom natural sediments. Ammonia and manganese arereleased to overlying water but are rapidly lost to the aquaticsystem.

Calendar Year 1975 represents the approximate apex of thescheduled scope and funding of the Dredged Material ResearchProgram. Work will be underway by the end of the year in a11program tasks.

In conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, EPA plans to holda workshop on dredged material disposal in Fiscal Year 1976.This workshop will concentrate on dredged material disposal criteria,application and utilization of the elutriate tests in operational modes,standardized procedures, and if needed, recommended revisionsto the tests.

i

5O

VII. OCEAN INCINERATION: A NEW TECHNIQUE IN OCEANDISPOSAL

Under the ocean dumping program, if there are viable, feasiblealternatives to the direct disposal of the material into the marineenvironment, either by incineration or any other way, then thosemethods should prevail. Ocean incineration is one of these alter-natives. Chemical wastes are taken aboard specially designedand equipped vessels and transported to specified locations in theocean. There, onboard incinerators are fuel fired to a predeter-mined temperature, the waste valves are opened, and waste is fedinto the incinerator. The nature of the wastes being incineratedis such that once they hit this pre-heated incinerator they continueto burn and the fuel feed is cut off. Efficiennies of these inciner-ations are greater than 99.9 percent complete combustion.

Ocean incineration has been conducted routinely for two yearsin the North Sea for industries in the Netherlands, Scandinaviaand Great Britain. Presently, three such vessels are in operationwith a fourth, a much larger one, under construction.

On September 27, 1974, EPA determined that ocean incinerationof wastes is under the purview of the Act. On October 10, 1974,a research permit was issued for incineration at sea of 4, 200metric tons (MT) of organochlorine wastes from Shell ChemicalCompany’s Deer Park, Texas, plant. The wastes were a mixture oflow molecular weight chlorinated hydrocarbons consisting primarilyof trichloropropane, trichloroethane, and dichloroethane. Thesewastes originated from the plant’s production of glycerin, vinylchloride, epichlorohydrin, and epoxy resins.

The incineration took place during October 20-28, 1974, inthe (half of Mexico at a new dumping site approximately 130 nauticalmiles from the nearest land. The wastes were incinerated aboardthe M/T Vulcanus, which is owned by Ocean Combustion Services,B. V., of the Netherlands. The two high-temperature incineratorsaboard the Vulcanus are designed to burn upwards of 99.9 percentof organochlorine wastes. The resulting emissions consistedprimarily of hydrogen chloride, carbon dioxide, and water; theywere discharged directly into the atmosphere without scrubbing.

In accordance with conditions of the permit, a substantialmonitoring effort was undertaken to determine the feasibilityof this waste disposal technique and the impact of the emissionson the marine environment. A large amount of data was gatheredduring the incineration. Following review of the results, EPAconcluded that, although there were some shortcomings in the

51

the monitoring efforts, conditions and criteria of the initialresearch permit had been met. No significant adverse impacton the environment~ was noted from the monitoring study.On November 27, 1974, EPA granted a second research permitto incinerate another shipload (4, 200 MT) under essentially thesame conditions as for the first shipload. Some monitoringrequirements were modified to correct some gaps in theinformation gathered on the first incineration.

The second research burn took place December 2-9, 1974.On December 10 EPA scientists and representatives of Alabama,Florida, Louisiana, and Texas met and unanimously concludedthat incineration by the Vulcanus of Shellls remaining organo-chlorine wastes, under the same conditions imposed by thetwo research permits, was an environmentally compatiblemeans of disposing of the wastes. On December 12, EPA issuedan interim permit for incineration of the remaining 8,400 MT.The wastes were incinerated in two loads, on December 19-26,1974, and on December 31, 1974, through January 7, 1975.

The final report on this incineration will be published in thenear future.

The U. S. Air Force has applied for an ocean dumping permitfor the ocean incineration of its stocks of Herbicide Orange. Theyhave also requested EPA to assist them in exploring the feasibilityof reformulation or reprocessing~

As a preliminary step in the evaluation of their permit appli-cation, apublic meeting was held in Washington on February 19, 1975,to receive public comment on the Air Force proposal. The meetingwas attended by about 60 people, including representatives ofseveral environmental interest groups. The general public reactionto the proposal to incinerate Herbicide Orange at sea was favorable,provided adequate monitoring of the incineration was done and thatconditions of practically complete combustion were maintained. Whilereprocessing or reformulation were recognized as potentially feas-ible alternatives, concern was expressed about the potential forenvironmental damage during continued storage and transportationto a reprocessing site.

On March 24, 1975, notice was published in the Federal Registerof the receipt of the application, the tentative deter~ ~-grant the Air Force a research permit allowing the incineration of4, 200 metric tons or less, and the proposed designation of a sitefor the burn.

52

Public hearings were held on this permit application in Honoluluon April 25° 1975o and in San Francisco on April 28, 1975. At thesehearings the Air Force presented extensive testimony indicatingthat the proposed ocean incineration would do no harm to the marineenvironment or cause any effects in the air. They also indicatedan intent to investigate reprocessing proposals by conductingpilot plant studies on a small amount of the Herbicide Orange tosee whether the claims made by the reprocessing firms were valid.They requested a reconvening of the hearing in Washington at alater date after the pilot plant studies were completed.

Other comments were also made at the hearings regarding thepotential for environmental impact of the incinerator emissions,and full consideration will be given to all comments before afinal decision regarding the ultimate disposal of HerbicideOrange is reached.

53

VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM

Section 222.5 of the Ocean Dumping Final Regulations andCriteria provides that any person may request in writing a publichearing to consider the issuance or denial of any ocean dumpingpermit application following public notice of receipt of suchapplication.

During 1974, 12 public hearings were held - one by Region I,three by Region II {one each on municipal and industrial permitapplications on the mainland, and one in Puerto Rico~, three byRegion HI, three by Region VI, and two by Headquarters.

Hearing attendance averaged 135 at the Region H hearings, 70at the Region HI hearings, and 55 at the Region VI hearings. Inaddition to representatives of EPA and the applicants, otherFederal agencies, Federal, state and local officials, environ-mental groups, academia, concerned citizens and the news mediaattended these hearings. Those who wished to make statementson the proposed dumping did so. Television and newspaper cover-age of the hearings was often extensive, and public participationwas spirited. Many citizens expressed concern regarding thepossible degradation of the oceans and, in Region IX, fear thatsewage sludge from the New York Bight was moving toward thebeaches of Long Island.

A three-day public hearing was conducted by EPA Headquartersin Pensacola, Florida, in July 1974, on an application from DuPont-Belle, West Virginia~ to dump chemical wastes in the Gulf ofMexico. This hearing was attended by approximately 250 persons.Extensive scientific testimony was presented on behalf of theapplicant, and by representatives of the Gulf states who opposedthe proposed dump. As a result of this hearing, the Administratorof EPA determined in October to deny the permit until furthertechnical studies could clarify the environmental concerns re-garding the ecological impact of the dumping operation.

Headquarters also conducted a public hearing on the appli-cation of Shell Chemical Company to incinerate organoehlorinewastes at sea. Following the hearing, a research permit wasissued to Shell to incinerate 4,200 metric tons of this waste ona specially designed incinerator ship. A technical conferencewas held after this first burn to evaluate the results of extensivemonitoring conducted during the burn. Even though no adverseeffects to the marine environment were observed, a secondresearch permit was issued to allow aerial monitoring of the

55

emissions from the incinerator stacks and additional sea-surface monitoring. Based on the results of the second researchpermit, Shell was granted an interim permit to dispose of twomore shiploads of these wastes.

In its implementation of the ocean dumping permit program,EPA has been impressed by the nature and extent of publicconcern for the oceans and interest in how the program isprogressing. In comments received at public hearings, inletters received in response to public notices, and in reactionto newspaper reports, it is apparent that the public is deeplyconcerned about pollution of the oceans and what is being doneabout it.

56

IX. THE FUTURE OF OCEAN DUMPING AS A MEANS OF DISPOSAL

The enactment of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc-tuaries Act of 1972 refiected the public awareness of a need toassess and control the cumulative effects of man!s activities oncoastal and ocean resources, and the undesirable and possiblyirretrievable changes to ocean ecosystems that these activitiesmay have.

Prior to passage of the Act, regulatory activities and authoritieswere scattered among different agencies and were not adequate tohandle the problems of ocean dumping. States did not exercisecontrol over ocean dumping and generally their authority extendedonly within the three-mile territorial sea. The Army Corps ofEngineers’ authority to regulate ocean dumpingwas also largelyconfined to the territorial sea, but the Corps dredging activities,in response to its responsibility to facilitate navigation, involvedit with ocean disposal beyond the three-mile limit. The CoastGuard enforced several Federal laws regarding pollution but didnot have direct authority to regulate ocean dumping. The AtomicEnergy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission)licensed the disposal of radioactive materials.

In enacting the Ocean Dumping Act, the Congress vested theresponsibility for regulating the dumping of all materials exceptdredged material in the Environmental Protection Agency;regulating the ocean dumping of dredged material was assignedto the Corps of Engineers using criteria promulgated by EPA inconsultation with the Corps. Because protection of the marineenvironment was of immediate concern, the Act required thatcriteria be developed and the regulatory program implementedbased on the then known impact of waste materials in the oceans.At that time, however, there was a great dearth of knowledgeon the impact of wastes on the marine environment. This isbeing rectified as rapidly as possible at the same time the permitprogram is in operation, but EPA’s efforts to meet its respon-sibilities under the Act were undertaken with the realization thatmodifications of various aspects of our programs would be re-quired in the future.

In its first two years of regulatory authority over ocean dumping,EPA has taken a strict, highly restrictive approach toward applyingthe criteria embodied in the Act by requiring all dumpers to activelyseek alternatives to ocean dumping even when their wastes havemet the published EPA criteria for issuing permits. During thesetwo years EPA has brought all ocean dumping in the United Statesunder full regulatory control and has required many dumpers either

57

to~ stop dumping immediately or to phase out their dumpingactivities within the next few years.

EPA has taken this approach because of the general lack ofspecific knowledge about the impacts of waste materials on marineecosystems. As the results of research now underway becomeavailable, it may be possible to become more selective in permittingthe disposal of some wastes by ocean dumping if it can be demon-strated that the disposal will not cause unreasonable degradation ofthe marine environment.

The general problem of pollution of the marine environment hasnumerous components~ of which pollution by ocean dumping is onlyone. Other significant sources of pollution are ocean outfalls, dis-charges from offshore platforms, and land runoff from rivers andestuaries. Most forms of pollution from these sources are reg-ulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendmentsof 1972 through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,and specifically Section 403(c) which requires the setting of oceandischarge criteria for ocean outfalls. EPA applies the same strictcriteria to outfall disposal as it does to ocean dumping, in additionto requiring at least secondary treatment for all municipal sewage.

In looking to the future, it can be expected that increase inpopulation and industrial growth in coastal areas, which historicallytend to grow more rapidly than inland areas, will result in greaterpressures for ocean disposal either by outfall or by dumping, inaddition to much larger quantities of effluents being discharged inrivers and estuaries. All these sources of pollution of the marineenvironment must be regulated and strictly controlled to limitadverse impacts and to insure that the best environmental alternativesare chosen,

58

[

"10

¢

II

j~

ocean dumping in the united states-1975

Documents